"thunder" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 13:43:35 +0000, NOYB wrote:


The definition of "abuse" is up for debate IMO. If it leaves no
permanent
physical defect, and the prisoner doesn't die, it should be permissable
under certain circumstances (for example, the "ticking time bomb
scenario").

As if torture works?

Yeah, it works.

If you are looking for accurate intelligence,
torture isn't the answer. When a man is squealing in pain, or quaking in
fear, he will tell you anything to make the treatment stop.

We're not trying to get confessions out of these guys in order to use it
for propaganda in the way the Vietcong abused our men. We're trying to get
information on the planning of the next attack. We're not looking for them
to "tell us anything". We're asking where they're staging from, who else is
behind the attacks, where the money and weapons are from, and where the next
attack is going to occur. The answer to any of these is verifiable in a
very short time period.


Throughout
history, those that endorse torture have belonged to a special club. You
know the one. Nazi Germany, Latin American Death Squads, Communist Police
States, are all members. Frankly, I would rather my country didn't join
that club.

Too late. Your country entered that club when the founding fathers fought
the American Revolution. Imprisonment, beatings, the stockades, deprivation
of food, etc. were all commonplance in that conflict and virtually all
others that we fought in.

I'm not advocating torture beyond anything that our Special Forces go
through during Hell Week. That's enough to break most men...especially a
terrorist who doesn't know to what limit we might actually take the abuse.
We have to at least create doubt in the detainee that they might never live
to see the light of day again...even if that's not true.





They are organized *non-uniformed* military personnel who use mosques,
hospitals, and civilian populations for shelter and weapons
storage...which means they're unlawful combatants not entitled to the
protections of the Geneva Convention.

You keep repeating this, as if repetition will some how make it true.
*All* combatants are protected under the Geneva Convention. They are just
not afforded the same protections as prisoners of war.

And you keep repeating this. But it's simply not true of terrorists coming
in to the country from neighboring countries that aren't party to the
conflict. I've already explained this to you.